BTW - while the link I posted was from a pro-RKBA site, please notice that the article was reprinted by permission of Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995

And, as I noted in my original post:

"Statistics aside, I have the moral right and duty to protect myself from unwarranted aggression. This right was recognized in the middle ages as existing independently of any government, and was codified in the English Bill of rights, which was one source of inspiration for our own Second Amendment. That a gun helps me in that effort is indisputable."

Most countries with high gun ownership rates and low murder rates tend to have hunting rifles, not assault weapons. They also have extensive systems that work to prevent guns from coming into the wrong hands.

That's an indefensible statement.

First, the term "Assault Rile" relates specifically to "intermediate caliber select-fire weapons". As in firearms, both rifles and carbines that have full-auto capabilities. Try getting your hands on one of those outside the military. It can be done, but it requires a ridiculous amount of paperwork, time and money as existing weapons are tightly regulated by the ATF. Give it a try and see how long it takes you.

What the media mistakenly refer to as "Assault Weapons" (a vague term made up by the Brady's a while back which has no legal definition) are semi-automatic only rifles having cosmetic features that mimic the appearance of an Assault Rifle without the select-fire ability.

In fact, there are many, many "hunting rifles" out there that are more powerful, although the 5.56x54 NATO cartridge can and has taken down deer and smaller game. BTW - I find it very "interesting" that when the police purchase these so-called "assault weapons", they are immediately renamed, becoming "patrol rifles" - a far more palatable term.

Statistics aside, I have the moral right and duty to protect myself from unwarranted aggression. This right was recognized in the middle ages as existing independently of any government, and was codified in the English Bill of rights, which was one source of inspiration for our own Second Amendment. That a gun helps me in that effort is indisputable.

So I just had a look at my most recent electric bill which provides my usage numbers for the past 13 months. According to those numbers, I used between 779 KWh and 1,291 KWh, averaging 1,001 KWh/month. I'm on the budget plan, meaning my payment is the same each month regardless of usage (with an annual settle-up to account for any over/undercharges). By my calculations, I pay about $0.11/KWh, vs. your $0.31/KWh. Does your electric company do something "special" for you in addition to simply providing electricity? For nearly triple the price/KWh I sure hope they do!

Certainly don't become trapped with a dying language, but do not arbitrarily rule out working with legacy code. Think of it as a challenge instead:

1) You always learn something even if it's negative (don't do that!!!)
2) You gain insight into another's thought process. Sometimes that's scary, but again, you learn something - a new perspective, perhaps.
3) Really bad code can let you pull off the impossible - improving performance, reducing resource utilization, etc. You can become the "go to" person, with the job security and good performance evals that come with it.

None of the questions have any surrounding context that would add or subtract from any feelings of empathy I may or may not have. Whether I (or anyone else, for that matter) feels empathy towards a subject depends greatly on the circumstances. Do I feel empathy towards the folks being impacted by the gulf oil spill? Sure. Why? Because their way of life is being altered in ways we can't even begin to measure through no fault of their own. Do I feel empathy for a guy who burned himself to a crisp because he was too realize he shouldn't smoke while fueling his Prius? Very little, actually. Don't do stupid shit ya dumbass!

The other thing to consider is that no car ever made has enough engine power to overcome the brakes. Even if you don't put the transmission in Neutral, you should be able to stop the car barring massively failed brakes.

Don't believe me? Go start your car. Step on the brakes and hold them, and then put the transmission in gear. No matter how much you rev the engine, the car won't move other than torquing over a bit. The brakes are designed specifically to overcome the engine.

This is an exceptionally bad idea. Even with extensive training, in an emergency, you do not think about how to react, and decades of "muscle memory" kicks in. There will be many, many instances of someone in a crisis situation trying in vain to stop their vehicle by attempting to stomp on a non-existant brake pedal.

If you change the QWERTY keyboard, for example, all you have are some frustrated touch-typists. Change this interface and you're going to have scores of dead bodies followed by inevitable lawsuits. A steering wheel and pedals may not be the best interface, but it's too late to change unless you have both systems in place for decades until a new generation of drivers are trained to use only the joystick mechanism.

This is publicly available information to start with, and, according to someone in the know, the town is very small, and the officers are quite brazen about being "undercover cops" to the point where her disclosure came as no surprise to anyone in town. For a longer discussion, try this:

I may still be connected to the grid, but solar power usage already provides net benefits to the company:

The reduction in demand allows the company to reduce its capital needs since they have less need to string new cable, less need for new generating capacity, land acquisition and attendant zoning/legal fees, etc.

The reduction in demand allows the company to reduce its consumption of fossil fuel - lessening both its direct fuel costs and its need to potentially purchase costly carbon offsets.